Crucial Data Were Fabricated In Report Signed by Top Biologist

By PHILIP J. HILTS, Special to The New York Times

Published: March 21, 1991

WASHINGTON, March 20—
After one of the most celebrated investigations of scientific misconduct in the United States, the National Institutes of Health has concluded that crucial data were faked in a report signed by a leading molecular biologist.

The researcher, Dr. David Baltimore, said today that he would ask that the paper be retracted. Until then Dr. Baltimore, a Nobel laureate who is president of Rockefeller University, had steadfastly defended both the paper and Thereza Imanishi-Kari, a co-author whose laboratory findings used in the paper were criticized by the health institutes. He had also attacked the investigation by the health institutes as inappropriate prying.

But he said today that it would be "up to Thereza Imanishi-Kari" to defend the paper. Finding Is Unconfirmed

The paper described findings suggesting that transplanted genes could stimulate a recipient's immune system to produce certain antibodies. The finding, which would have been a significant advance in immunology, has not been confirmed.

In a draft report, which has not been made public, the health institutes drew a picture of data falsification that appeared to extend over several years, both before the publication of the paper in 1986 and after it in efforts to cover up the lack of data or the false data in the paper. The investigation may go through several more steps, but it could eventually result in Dr. Imanishi-Kari's being barred from receiving Federal money to support research.

Dr. Baltimore was named president of Rockefeller University in New York in 1989 despite some faculty members' questioning how he handled the falsification accusation. They contended it reflected poorly on Dr. Baltimore's ability to lead the university.

Ronald C. Breslow, a chemist who is on the university's board, said today that he did not believe that the report would revive the dispute about Dr. Baltimore's appointment. "I think he has been a very successful president and people there are very happy with the things he has been doing," he said. Other board members, including David Rockefeller, could not be reached for comment.

The disputed work, reported in the journal Cell, was not done in Dr. Baltimore's laboratory. But the health institutes accused him of brushing off allegations of fraud and making suggestions that researchers were not obliged to keep truthful records as long as they did not publish them.

In the draft, the investigators said it was "difficult to comprehend" his stance.

The report praised as "heroic" Dr. Margot O'Toole, a junior researcher who lost her job after she drew attention to the disputed findings. 'Serious Scientific Misconduct'

The accusations against Dr. Imanishi-Kari, a professor at Tufts University, included statements that notes in her laboratory notebooks had been altered.

"The actions of Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari constitute serious scientific misconduct," said a cover letter written by Dr. Suzanne Hadley, deputy director of the health institutes' Office of Scientific Integrity. The letter alos said Dr. Imanishi-Kari "repeatedly presented false and misleading information to the N.I.H., the Office of Scientific Integrity, and the expert scientific panels which assisted in the N.I.H. investigations."

Dr. Baltimore himself was not included in the charges of misconduct by the institutes. Officials at the institutes said his conduct, along with that of other officials at the laboratories and universities in question, would be reviewed as part of a separate inquiry.

The case has dragged on through investigations by the health institutes and three Congressional hearings. It has brought hundreds of scientists to meetings and hearings where some spoke out against what they said were unwarranted interference and unsubstantiated charges.

But in a telephone interview today Dr. Baltimore said the draft report, "if it stands without major changes, raises very serious questions about serological data in the paper." He added: "Therefore I am today asking the other authors to join with me in requesting that the journal retract the paper until such time as the questions are resolved. It is up to Thereza Imanishi-Kari to resolve them." 'I Was Quite Confident'

Asked why he did not make a similar statement when the charges were first made, he said, "I didn't believe it then. I had lived throught the experience. I was quite confident that the paper reflected the data as it unfolded."

But he said the new report raised issues "serious enough to ask carefully whether there was misconduct here."

Dr. Imanishi-Kari referred all questions to her lawyer, Bruce A. Singal of Boston, who said that neither he nor his client would have a comment on the report.

Dr. Joseph Byrne, associate provost for research of Tufts University, said the university would give Dr. Imanishi-Kari a chance to respond to the report before taking any action. Tufts looked into the charges when it hired her and found no evidence of misconduct.

Dr. Imanishi-Kari did the work faulted in the health institutes' draft report while at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which also investigated the matter and found no evidence of misconduct. Dr. Herman Eisen, who led the investigation there, said in an interview today that he did not believe he should have acted differently, given the information presented at the time. He said that he still believed some conclusions of the paper, if not the parts being questioned.